While these talking points and responses are extremely useful, to talk to the public, we need some simple story of what's wrong with off-sets. The "cheating neutral" is a nice analogy, but it's not exact enough.[*]
-- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. [*] From Robert Frank's NYT column: >... A British Web site called Cheat Neutral (www.cheatneutral.com) parodies >the concept — by offering a service under which someone who wants to cheat on >his partner can pay someone else who will refrain from committing an act of >infidelity. The site’s founders say they wanted to use humor to demonstrate >why the market for carbon offsets is a moral travesty... > AT last count, Cheat Neutral, the British infidelity neutralization Web site, > said it had offset 65,768 cheats, and had recruited a roster of “9,002 > faithful people ready to neutralize your misdemeanors.” The Web site draws > out the parallel this way: “When you cheat on your partner you add to the > heartbreak, pain, and jealousy in the atmosphere.” Cheat Neutral claims that > its plan “neutralizes the pain and unhappy emotion and leaves you with a > clear conscience.” < [Frank thinks that the analogy with carbon offsets is inaccurate.] _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
